Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species C and E in Figs. 6 and 7 in the reply filed on 4-29-2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 9, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shepelev et al. (US App. 20210405794 hereinafter referred to as “Shep”) in view of Manlapt et al. (US Pat. 9934045 hereinafter referred to as “Man”).
In regard to claim 1, Shep teaches an input sensing device connected to a processor (see at least Abstract and Fig. 2, 268), the input sensing device comprising: a sensor panel including sensors (see Fig. 2, 236 and 237); and a sensor driver configured to transmit a driving signal to the sensors and receive sensing signals corresponding to the driving signal from the sensors (see Fig. 2, 228 TDDI), wherein the sensor driver loads firmware stored in a non-volatile memory(see Para. 54).
Shep is not relied upon to teach non-volatile memory of the processor
However Man teaches non-volatile memory of the processor (see Col. 1, Ln 45-58).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the memory of Shep to be in the controller of Man for minimum initialization (see Col. 1, Ln 45-58). Examiner also notes Shep discloses the base product/process of memory storage while Shep teaches the known technique of non-volatile memory so as to yield predictable results of non-volatile memory storage in the device of Shep.
Regarding claim 2, Shep in view of Man teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Shep further teaches wherein the sensor driver does not include a nonvolatile memory. (see Fig. 2).
In regard to claim 8, Shep teaches an electronic device (see Abstract and Fig. 2), comprising: a processor (see at least Abstract and Fig. 2, 268); and an input sensing device connected to the processor (see Fig. 2), wherein the input sensing device comprises: a sensor panel including sensors (see Fig. 2, 236 and 237); and a sensor driver configured to transmit a driving signal to the sensors and receive sensing signals corresponding to the driving signal from the sensor s (see Fig. 2, 228 TDDI), wherein the sensor driver loads firmware stored in a nonvolatile memory (see Para. 54).
Shep is not relied upon to teach non-volatile memory of the processor
However Man teaches non-volatile memory of the processor (see Col. 1, Ln 45-58).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the memory of Shep to be in the controller of Man for minimum initialization (see Col. 1, Ln 45-58). Examiner also notes Shep discloses the base product/process of memory storage while Shep teaches the known technique of non-volatile memory so as to yield predictable results of non-volatile memory storage in the device of Shep.
Regarding claim 9, Shep in view of Man teaches all the limitations of claim 8. Shep further teaches wherein the sensor driver does not include a nonvolatile memory (See Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 3, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shepelev et al. (US App. 20210405794 hereinafter referred to as “Shep”) in view of Manlapt et al. (US Pat. 9934045 hereinafter referred to as “Man”) in further view of Hanebutte et el. (US App. 20160216974 hereinafter referred to as “Hane”).
Regarding claim 3, Shep in view of Man teaches all the limitations of claim 2.
Shep further teaches wherein the sensor driver loads data from an external memory located outside the input sensing device (see Fig. 2).
Shep in view of Man are not relied upon to teach calibration data.
However, Hane teaches calibration data (see Para. 57 and 76).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the memory of Shep to be in the controller of Man with the calibration data of Hane for allowing sensor data when the OS is not available (see Para. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Shep in view of Man teaches all the limitations of claim 9.
Shep further teaches wherein the sensor driver loads data from an external memory located outside the input sensing device (see Fig. 2).
Shep in view of Man are not relied upon to teach calibration data.
However, Hane teaches calibration data (see Para. 57 and 76).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the memory of Shep to be in the controller of Man with the calibration data of Hane for allowing sensor data when the OS is not available (see Para. 3).
Claim(s) 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shepelev et al. (US App. 20210405794 hereinafter referred to as “Shep”) in view of Manlapt et al. (US Pat. 9934045 hereinafter referred to as “Man”) in further view of Hanebutte et el. (US App. 20160216974 hereinafter referred to as “Hane”) in further view of Pirogov et al. (US App. 20210255727 hereinafter referred to as “Piro”).
Regarding claim 4, Shep in view of Man and Hane teaches all the limitations of claim 3. Shep further teaches wherein the sensor driver (see Fig. 2) Shep in view of Man and Hane are not relied upon to teach performs a calculation to calculate a coordinate of an external input to the sensor from the sensing signals using the firmware or calibrates the calculation using the calibration data.
However, Piro teaches a calculation to calculate a coordinate of an external input to the sensor from the sensing signals using the firmware or calibrates the calculation using the calibration data (see Para. 28).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the memory of Shep to be in the controller of Man with the calibration data of Hane with the calculation of Piro for the exact touch position (see Para. 28).
Regarding claim 11, Shep in view of Man and Hane teaches all the limitations of claim 10. Shep further teaches wherein the sensor driver (see Fig. 2) Shep in view of Man and Hane are not relied upon to teach performs a calculation to calculate a coordinate of an external input to the sensor from the sensing signals using the firmware or calibrates the calculation using the calibration data.
However, Piro teaches performs a calculation to calculate a coordinate of an external input to the sensor from the sensing signals using the firmware or calibrates the calculation using the calibration data (see Para. 28).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the memory of Shep to be in the controller of Man with the calibration data of Hane with the calculation of Piro for the exact touch position (see Para. 28).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 12-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes: Lee et al. (US App. 20150160761) and Suzuki (US App. 20180267661).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW YEUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-4115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW YEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights